VYRP and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerns an appeal by VYRP against a decision by Comcare regarding a claim for compensation for a psychological injury. VYRP, whose identity was protected by orders made under section 35 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* due to her employment in the justice system, was employed as a Probation and Parole Officer. She lodged a claim for compensation on 11 August 2016, alleging a psychological injury first experienced on 2 December 2013, stemming from perceived workplace maltreatment. Comcare contended that the claim was not in respect of an injury in 2013 but rather arose from events in 2016, and that the claim was not properly made under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the scope of VYRP's claim and whether it had been validly made.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether VYRP's claim, lodged in August 2016, could be construed to encompass a psychological injury that she alleged first manifested in December 2013, and whether the claim, including any alleged aggravation or recurrence of symptoms in 2016, had substantially complied with the notice and claim requirements of sections 53 and 54 of the SRC Act. Comcare argued that the claim was not properly made in respect of the 2013 period and that the medical documentation provided did not sufficiently establish an injury at that time. VYRP maintained that her claim should be interpreted broadly to include the injurious effects of her employment circumstances from 2013, and that the worsening of her symptoms in 2016 was either an aggravation or a distinct injury covered by her claim.

The Tribunal reasoned that it had jurisdiction to review Comcare's reconsideration decision of 17 November 2016 concerning VYRP's 11 August 2016 compensation claim for a mental health injury. It found that to the extent VYRP's claim extended to include a worsening or recurrence of the ailment she alleged began in 2013, and these matters had been decided by primary and reconsideration decision makers, the Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction and power to determine whether these constituted an 'aggravation' or an 'injury' for the purposes of the SRC Act. The Tribunal noted that the reference to 2003 for seeking medical treatment was an admitted error and intended to be 2013.